Second edit in response to jumpinjehoshaphat - Sept. 2, 2017:
Really? That's all you've got? And here I was hoping for a challenge.
Edit in response to jumpinjehoshaphat - Sept. 2, 2017:
Frankly, I don't need to provide you with any reason whatsoever for why I don't call in. Your disapproval of what I have to say or how I'm saying it is really quite irrelevant to me.
Original post - Aug. 31, 2017:
Listening to John say "I know a lot about postmodernism" was a lot like hearing Trump say "I know a lot about hacking." He'll have to excuse me if I don't give him the benefit of the doubt.
If one were to take JZ's essay "The Catastrophe of Postmodernism" at face value, then one would be left with the impression that the only alternative to the Cartesian Cogito is "the end of the subject" (to use John's own words) with no leeway in between. However, anyone with more than just an amateur understanding of thinkers like Deleuze & Guattari would realize that there's a Grand Canyon's worth of wiggle room between the Subject as an ontological *a priori* and "Oh crap, the Subject no longer exists!"
Does anarcho-primitivism even *have* a theory of the individual human Subject? To the best of my knowledge, it just implicitly embraces the Cogito without ever stopping to question what it is or why it can even be assumed to exist. And let's not ignore JZ's crass misreading of the thinkers he deems "Postmodern" when he suggests that they are all unanimous in the view that the Subject is merely an epiphenomenon of language. A decisive point of divergence between Lacan on the one hand and Deleuze & Guattari on the other is that the former considers the Subject to be a "linguistic" phenomenon whereas the latters consider it to be a "machinic" one. Language is just one particular *conceptual technology* in a broad network of machinic relations that facilitates the process of individuation – i.e. *the emergence of the Subject* from out of a pre-individual void.
Of course, John wouldn’t know that because he isn’t interested in the level of intellectual rigour that is required to have anything more than a rudimentary understanding of the various theorists he flippantly lumps under the catch-all category of “postmodernism.” He seems quite content with the bare minimum of mental exertion required to claim that, yes, he has in fact acquainted himself with so-called “postmodern” theory and is, therefore, in a position to summarily dismiss it. And why might that be, exactly? I’m sure he’d respond to this question by saying that he wants to rescue the idea of “Meaning” from its inevitable descent into absolute relativism. Personally, I don’t buy it. I think this has more to do with a lack of creative thinking on his part – not to mention an obstinate refusal to so much as even *engage* with concepts that make him uncomfortable and destabilize the very foundations of his ideology.
The anarchist project is perfectly capable of surviving without Enlightenment rationality. Perhaps not JZ’s particular *version* of it but, luckily, it’s just one of many. If he’d set aside his fear of things he doesn’t understand just long enough to have a real conversation, then maybe this might start to become clearer for him. At the present juncture, however, it seems we’re destined to continue arguing over whether his tedious repetition of the word “Postmodern” whenever someone says something he doesn’t like amounts to nothing more than childish name-calling – which, just for the record, it most certainly does.